Kenneth R Taylor1, Matthew C Caldwell1, Angeletta M Payne1, Douglas A Apsey1, J Richard Townley1, Charles D Reilly1, Vasudha A Panday2. 1. From Emory University School of Medicine (Taylor), Atlanta, Georgia, and the Joint Warfighter Refractive Surgery Center (Caldwell, Payne, Apsey, Townley, Reilly, Panday), Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, USA. 2. From Emory University School of Medicine (Taylor), Atlanta, Georgia, and the Joint Warfighter Refractive Surgery Center (Caldwell, Payne, Apsey, Townley, Reilly, Panday), Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, USA. Electronic address: pandava1@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relative pain with 3 U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved bandage soft contact lenses (SCLs) applied after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). SETTING: Joint Warfighter Refractive Surgery Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, USA. DESIGN: Prospective comparative case series. METHODS:Patients having PRK were randomized to a senofilcon A (Acuvue Oasys), balafilcon A (Purevision), or lotrafilcon A (Air Optix) bandage SCL in each eye postoperatively. Patients were evaluated 1 and 4 days postoperatively and completed a survey rating absolute pain in each eye on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: The study enrolled 54 patients. At 1 and 4 days, eyes with the senofilcon A lens had the lowest pain scores followed by eyes with the lotrafilcon A lens and then eyes with the balafilcon A lens. Averaging qualitative results from 1 and 4 days showed that eyes with the senofilcon A lens were reported as having more pain by 4% of patients, eyes with the lotrafilcon A lens by 27%, and eyes with the balafilcon A lens by 53%; 16% reported no difference (P<.001). Quantitatively, the senofilcon A lens was 40% more comfortable than the lotrafilcon A lens and 65% more comfortable than the balafilcon A lens on average. The lotrafilcon A lens was 38% more comfortable than the balafilcon A lens on average (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically and clinically significant difference in post-PRK pain between the 3 bandage SCLs. The senofilcon A lens caused the least pain. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Dr. Reilly is a consultant to Alcon Laboratories, Inc. and Abbott Medical Optics, Inc. but was not at the time of the study. No other author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relative pain with 3 U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved bandage soft contact lenses (SCLs) applied after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). SETTING: Joint Warfighter Refractive Surgery Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, USA. DESIGN: Prospective comparative case series. METHODS:Patients having PRK were randomized to a senofilcon A (Acuvue Oasys), balafilcon A (Purevision), or lotrafilcon A (Air Optix) bandage SCL in each eye postoperatively. Patients were evaluated 1 and 4 days postoperatively and completed a survey rating absolute pain in each eye on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: The study enrolled 54 patients. At 1 and 4 days, eyes with the senofilcon A lens had the lowest pain scores followed by eyes with the lotrafilcon A lens and then eyes with the balafilcon A lens. Averaging qualitative results from 1 and 4 days showed that eyes with the senofilcon A lens were reported as having more pain by 4% of patients, eyes with the lotrafilcon A lens by 27%, and eyes with the balafilcon A lens by 53%; 16% reported no difference (P<.001). Quantitatively, the senofilcon A lens was 40% more comfortable than the lotrafilcon A lens and 65% more comfortable than the balafilcon A lens on average. The lotrafilcon A lens was 38% more comfortable than the balafilcon A lens on average (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically and clinically significant difference in post-PRK pain between the 3 bandage SCLs. The senofilcon A lens caused the least pain. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Dr. Reilly is a consultant to Alcon Laboratories, Inc. and Abbott Medical Optics, Inc. but was not at the time of the study. No other author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. Published by Elsevier Inc.